As a battleground state, one
can expect that Oregon
would closely match the will of the national electorate. Since Oregon votes 100% by mail and paper ballot precincts had
the lowest (2%) discrepancies from the recorded vote, we can hypothesize that Oregon closely
approximates the True National Vote share. In fact, Oregon'srecorded vote
share closely approximated the National True Vote Model in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
But unlike the other battleground and strong Democratic states which saw Bush
increase his recorded vote share from 2000, Bush lost share in Oregon.

In 2000, Gore won Oregon by 47.0-46.5%. He
won by 48.4-47.9% nationwide. According to the 2000 Census, there were 5.4
million net uncountedvotes. The majority (70-80% ) of
uncounted votes are Democratic. If Gore had 75% (4.0 million) of the uncounted
votes, his True Vote margin (based on total votes cast) was 55.0-51.9 million
(49.6-46.8%) - a virtual match to his 49.4-46.9% aggregate state exit poll
margin.

Do you agree that these
results indicate that Oregon
closely reflects the national electorate?

In 2004, Kerry won Oregon by 51.4-47.2%.
Bush won the national recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. Oregon voters were surveyed by telephone. The
discrepancy from the recorded vote was 1.8%. In the other 14 battleground states, the average exit poll discrepancy (WPD)
was a whopping 7.5%.

Is it just a coincidence
that Bush’s 2004 Oregon mail-in ballot vote share (with its mandated random
audit) declined from his 2000 share while his vote shares increased in
Democratic and battleground states with unverifiable DRE and mechanical vote
counts and no mandated audit of optical scan ballots?

Regarding the 2004 election,
which do you believe?

a) Oregon’s
vote share confirms the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (Kerry 52.0-Bush
47.0%) or b) The recorded national share (Bush by 50.7- 48.3%) accurately reflected
the True share (i.e. there was little or no fraud). If you believe a), then you
must also believe that Kerry must have done better than Gore nationwide and
easily won the election.

One would logically expect that
Kerry would do better than Gore in highly Democratic New York State. But that
was not the case. Gore won NY by 25% (60-35%). Kerry won by only 18% (58-40%).
Not logical, especially since Kerry won the exit poll by 30% (64-34%). The exit
poll makes sense; Kerry had a 5-1 edge in returning Nader 2000 voters.

Do you believe the NY
recorded vote or the exit poll?

Considering the results from
2000 and 2004, do you believe a) that Obama’s Oregon 56.7% recorded share was a close
match to his national True Vote Model 58.0% share or b) his recorded 52.9% share?
If you believe a) then you must also believe that massive fraud cut Obama’s margin by 13.0 million votes (from 22.5 to 9.5 million).

Consider the following:

1. In 2000,
Gore won Oregon
by 47.0-46.5%, matching his 48.4-47.9% national (51.0-50.456 million) vote
margin.The national aggregate of the
unadjusted state exit polls indicated that Gore won by 49.4-46.9% (52.6-49.4
million).

8. Obama won Oregon
by 56.7-40.4%, closely matching 1) the 58.4% post-election survey, 2) the state
exit poll national aggregate (57.9%), 3) the Oregon True Vote model (57.1%) and 4) the National
True Vote Model (58.0%). But his
recorded share was just 52.9%.One would
expect that the Oregon
share would closely match the national share.

To summarize, Oregon matched the 2000
national recorded vote and within 2% of the aggregate exit poll. It closely
matched the 2004 national exit poll but was far from the recorded vote.In 2008, Oregon closely matched the True Vote model,
the aggregate unadjusted state exit polls.

Now let’s consider New York. In 2000, Gore won the state by 25% (60.2-35.2%). In
2004, Kerry’s recorded margin declined to 18.3% (58.4-40.1%). But Kerry won the
unadjusted exit poll by 64.5-34.0%, a 12.2% WPD.Why the sharp reversal of fortune?

Consider the largest counties
in Oregon and New York, Multnomah (OR) and Kings (NY):

Gore won Multnomah by
63.5-28.2%. Kerry won it by 71.6-27.4%, an 8.9% HIGHER margin.

Gore won KingsCounty
(Brooklyn) by 74.7-15.0%. Kerry won it by
74.2-22.8%, an 8.6% LOWER margin.

12) In the two elections in
which Clinton
was the incumbent, the NY exit polls had an average 0.6 WPD .

13) In the three elections
in which a Bush was the incumbent, NY exit polls had an average 8.0 WPD.

13) In the lastthree elections,
late NY Democratic (paper) vote shares were 7% higher than Election Day (lever)
shares.

14) In 2000, 2004 and 2008,
the average of NY Late (paper ballot) vote shares was within 1% of the
unadjusted exit poll.

If one ignores all of the above, there is every
reason for New Yorkers to “love those levers” – except for this: Even if
everyone who came to the polls voted and all the lever machines performed
perfectly, the fact remains that votes are counted by proprietary computer
software, not open source, which can easily be programmed to switch votes that
may or may not have been entered accurately.Ay, there’s the rub.

In 2004, the exit pollsters
reported that lever voting machine precincts had a 12% error (WPD) rate.
Optical scanners and touch screens were 7%. Paper ballot precincts had the
lowest (2%). Is the fog
lifting?What happened in
2004 should be very clear by now.

In the 2008 NY primary, zero
votes were originally reported for Obama in nearly eighty minority precincts.
Many New Yorkers love the levers. They have been led to believe that because
levers are not computers, they are not subject to vote-switching and therefore
essentially fraud-free. But lever precinct totals are tabulated on central
computers which can be programmed to switch votes. And there are no paper
ballots to verify the count – except for late provisional and absentee ballots
which comprise about 7% of votes cast.

In Oregon,
the ballots are separated from
the return envelope before they are inspected. This process ensures
confidentiality. The votes are counted on Election Day. A record is kept
showing each voter whose ballot has been returned. No expensive voting
machines, no corrupted election officials, no long lines, no machine
breakdowns. In 1996, over 10% of votes cast were
uncounted, but the rate has declined sharply since the switch to mail in 1998.

Oregon mail-in ballots are counted
electronically, but there is a paper trail if a hand recount is necessary. In New York, computers also
do the counting based on reported Lever totals– but there are no paper ballots
to check the count. Levers are used to cast, but not count votes. Lever
advocates don’t want to talk about that.